Pete HENDRICKSON's Lost Horizons - Solutions?

[David Merrill]

Even if I was Pottapauq, so what? I've certainly avoided stirring up arguments like you see regularly on Quatloos; and as I said in my last post, that's not why I'm here. As for experts, there are plenty to choose from. If you're talking about the law, I have several college classmates who are lawyers (one, who works for the IRS, has been very helpful about how the IRS just doesn't bother with some people because the collection effort isn't worth the expected recovery. If coins, several of my friends are nationally prominent in the hobby.

As for being wrong about the German coin: I tend to concentrate on the minor coins, not on the German states silver/gold issues; and lately I have tended to work much more on Swiss coins (1850 to date). I only began a significant German collection within the last 10 years; before that, it was mostly British Commonwealth.

and

As for whether any Quatloosians are over here under other guises... so what? If you believe in what you say, you should be able to defend it to anyone.

That is fairly convincing - not Jay but Poppycock. So what? Primarily it means that you would be casting direct slurs about remedy as I present interpretation of §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411 in accord with Wserra's blog on "Q". - But rather with me having to display directly intrusive privacy violations I can continue to enjoy the people exercising remedy from this website do so from their own understanding of it, rather than depending on proven examples. Around here most members seem to believe JohnnyCash and other sanitized examples as true. More importantly though, the metaphysics around successful application of remedy comes from heart math.

I maintain my theory that what killed Q in popularity and interesting reading was when Wserra began linking the Libel of Review cases published on PACER. Showing good people's private information for ridicule feels bad and that is what does it - when people identify with being "outed" from anonymity on the Internet.

This is Bobbinville's first Post:

Isn't there a difference between numismatic value and the value of a piece of currency? I've got some US Notes; but there's no way that I would ever spend them because of their value as a collectible item.

Bobbinville's most recent post:

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means; so unless Doreen can convince a court that CtC is correct, she's in trouble. If you operate on the assumption that the courts are corrupt, then arguing a legal principle in them, which they don't like, is like playing craps with someone who brings loaded dice to the game.

The problem is that judges don't like to overturn precedent; so Doreen's best hope may lie in the political/legislative sphere.

With JohnnyCash's intuition in support it certainly makes sense that Poppycock would become bored with Q and find himself registering here. Quite directly then:


Are you Pottapauq?


I enjoy the probability that you are because it really does make comment how Q has become so boring without Harvester and Myself shredding Wserra's slurs. Of course Webhick has programmed the website chat area so that I am blind unless I borrow an IP by proxy or surf on anybody else's computer. - Which I also find highly entertaining that she would trouble with me; trying to keep me from reading such a boring website. So let's pretend that you intend to behave indefinitely... I will be treating you appropriately and reading your posts much more carefully for the gist that you are intending to attack remedy according to law.

The only problem is that, even if the courts indeed don't care what the law says, it is the courts which make the decisions as to what the law is and means...

It is amusing to me that I can address your first and last posts at once:

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an “obligation[ ] of the United States” that may be “redeemed in lawful money on demand.” 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not “money” per se...

I amplify your point with Colorado constitutional law being that only the county court judges are allowed to practice law at all. The appeals justices are bound to "authority" or case law (common law) stare decisis.

However I believe that my days of moderating you, or many others for that matter are coming to a close. I might well be casting an advertisement for all registered members ever here to take another look around and well, since they are already registered users there might be a flurry of interest in American Remedy. It could be that I would be overwhelmed from brain trust and other career interests to maintain this as "my" website feeling responsible for defending the integrity of remedy here by being a watchdog against the Poppycocks of the Internet.


Regards,

David Merrill.